Originally posted by KazetNagorra In principle you are right, of course. A monarch commands more respect in certain regions of the world where kings and queens are still revered. Still, that's like saying it's a good thing to have anti-semites as head of state because certain regimes regard that trait positively.
No, it's not remotely similar. I'm claiming there's a tourism advantage. There wouldn't be a tourism advantage to having a rabid anti-semite as a head of state.
Originally posted by DeepThought No, it's not remotely similar. I'm claiming there's a tourism advantage. There wouldn't be a tourism advantage to having a rabid anti-semite as a head of state.
Your monarchs help ward off the spirit of Oliver Cromwell.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung Your monarchs help ward off the spirit of Oliver Cromwell.
I would hope you had a happy Christmas, but of course being such a friend to the spirit of Oliver Cromwell, and part of America's Puritan tradition, you will be hoping to see that midwinter celebration with its pagan traditions abolished. Is this not why the Puritans put forward Thanksgiving as the correct alternative for good Americans?
The NSA is today so much better equipped than the Long Parliament was to check your oven and ensure no goose gets cooked. I am sure Google or Apple can come up with an app.
Originally posted by finnegan I would hope you had a happy Christmas, but of course being such a friend to the spirit of Oliver Cromwell, and part of America's Puritan tradition, you will be hoping to see that midwinter celebration with its pagan traditions abolished. Is this not why the Puritans put forward Thanksgiving as the correct alternative for good Americans?
http://www.oliv ...[text shortened]... k your oven and ensure no goose gets cooked. I am sure Google or Apple can come up with an app.
Fortunately I come from a Catholic background. The Anglo Americans never had the kind of power that Cromwell had over there. They can't starve us or piratize us like they did over there. We even had a Catholic President. A Catholic Prime Minister is probably illegal in the UK.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung Fortunately I come from a Catholic background. The Anglo Americans never had the kind of power that Cromwell had over there. They can't starve us or piratize us like they did over there. We even had a Catholic President. A Catholic Prime Minister is probably illegal in the UK.
There is no legal bar on a catholic being prime minister in the UK, though a Catholic could not advise the monarch on ecclesiastical appointments and related issues. As it happens, I think only Gordon Brown did not profess the Anglican faith. That can change but would be an interesting constitutional issue.
The US has only had the one Catholic president and in his election campaign he made a great play of denying that he would be influenced by Catholic - especially papal - political priorities. However, with 25% of the US population claiming to be Catholics it is not surprising that there are Catholics in all sorts of political positions there.
Nevertheless, the Puritan influence in US culture and politics is conspicuous and important. I am not even entirely sure that Catholics and Puritans are always too far apart on moral issues. The Puritan streak makes the US a very different country to any European nation.
1215
King John agreed to Magna Carta which stated the right of the barons to consult with and advise the king in his Great Council
1236
Earliest use of the term Parliament, referring to the Great Council
1254
Sheriffs were instructed to send elected representatives of the counties (knights of the shire) to consult with the king on taxation
1258
At a Parliament at Oxford, the nobles drafted the "Provisions of Oxford" which calls for regular Parliaments with representatives from the counties
1265
Simon de Montfort, in rebellion against Henry III, summoned a Parliament which included for the first time representatives of both the counties and towns
1278
The Clerk of the Parliaments began to compile the Rolls of Parliament, the records of proceedings, particularly the petitions and acts passed
Quite a lot has yet to happen before we get to Cromwell but if you think the Americans invented the UK parliament, that fits with the general quality of history I hear from Americans.
Originally posted by DeepThought No, it's not remotely similar. I'm claiming there's a tourism advantage. There wouldn't be a tourism advantage to having a rabid anti-semite as a head of state.
You're right, Buckingham Palace would cease to be a magnet for American tourists, and our tabloids would have little to write about.
Originally posted by finnegan http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/originsofparliament/birthofparliament/keydates/1215to1399/[quote]1215
King John agreed to Magna Carta which stated the right of the barons to consult with and advise the king in his Great Council
1236
Earliest use of the term Parliament, referring to the Great Council
1254
Sher ...[text shortened]... invented the UK parliament, that fits with the general quality of history I hear from Americans.
There is a city in the south east of England were the locals speak in a country bumpkin dialect . They also sit on their porch's chewing straw and playing banjo's. It is said that the American accent originated from this area of England crossing the Atlantic with these fine folk .
The city is Norwich (England ) the city that Cromwell hailed from, and many of his puritans . 🙂
Originally posted by finnegan .....if you think the Americans invented the UK parliament, that fits with the general quality of history I hear from Americans.
If there is an American notion on Parliament, it is that the two houses mimic the bicameral legislative body of Congress.
11 Dec '14 17:59
Britain should dump the monarchy
Back to Top